CA Unpub Decisions

Mother, P.R., appeals from the orders and findings of the juvenile court assuming jurisdiction over her infant daughter, N.G., and removing the child from mothers custody. Mother asserts there is insufficient evidence to support the orders and findings, despite her eight-year history of drug abuse, loss of custody of four older children due to her drug abuse, her methamphetamine use and criminal activity during her pregnancy with the infant, and her failure to test regularly for drugs for the four months leading up to the courts removal order. Mother contends the child was taken into custody at birth after mother tested positive for benzodiazepine, but, as it later became clear, the test was a false positive result due to pain medication the doctors at the hospital gave mother when she was in labor. Mother maintains the court improperly found jurisdiction entirely on the basis of her past history and there was no substantial evidence of any need to keep the infant from mothers custody as of the date of the disposition hearing. Court affirm.

Lynn Ballantyne appeals the grant of a petition for writ of mandate in favor of respondent Gaviota Coast Conservancy under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Res. Code, 21000 et seq.)[1] In 2008, County of Santa Barbara (County) adopted a mitigated negative declaration and approved Ballantyne's project to build a 13,333 square foot single family residence and garage, a 1,368 square foot detached guest house and garage, and a barn on the Gaviota Coast.
The trial court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing County to rescind approval of the project and to vacate adoption of the mitigated negative declaration. County was ordered to prepare a focused environmental impact report (EIR) on the aesthetics and visual impact of the project looking south toward the project from Farren Road. Appellant contends that this ruling is erroneous. Court affirm concluding that County erred in adopting the mitigated negative declaration. Substantial evidence supports a "fair argument" that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and that a focused EIR is required to address the aesthetics and visual impact of the project from Farren Road. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123.)

P.C. (Mother) appeals from June 9, 2009 orders denying her petition for modification and terminating parental rights to her three children, V.M. (born in Sept. 2000), M.C. (born in July 2003), and A.C. (born in April 2005). We affirm the orders because no abuse of discretion is shown with respect to the denial of the petition for modification and substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts finding that the beneficial relationship exception to termination of parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) did not apply.

Tony L. Curtis (appellant) appeals from the trial courts denial of his motion claiming an exemption for the property levied upon to satisfy a victim restitution order and a stay of execution of the restitution order pending appeal. We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief containing an acknowledgment that he had been unable to find any arguable issues.

Dentray White appeals the judgment of conviction following a plea of no contest to possession of concentrated cannabis. (Health & Saf. Code, 11357, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced appellant to a low term of 16 months, to run consecutive to a 17 year prison term appellant was serving. Appellant was ordered to pay to pay a $400 restitution fine (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b))[1]and a $400 parole revocation fine ( 1202.45). Court appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsels examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On October 26, 2009, Court advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. Court have received no response from appellant.

In his petition for an extraordinary writ, F.E. (Father) challenges a September 14, 2009 order setting a permanency planning hearing for January 11, 2010, as to his daughter, Y.E. Court deny the petition because substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts findings that there was no substantial probability that Y.E. would be returned to Father in six months.

A jury convicted defendant Tonya Renea Boyle of second degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, 189),[1] found true the allegations that she personally used a dangerous weapon, a knife ( 12022, subd. (b)), and that the victim was older than age 60 ( 1203.09, subd. (f)). On appeal, defendant contends that (1) insufficient evidence supports the murder conviction, (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the burden of proof; (3) the trial court misinstructed the jury by giving CALCRIM Nos. 3471, 3472, and 3473 regarding the limitations of self-defense; (4) CALCRIM No. 361 [failure of defendant to explain or deny evidence in her testimony] is unconstitutional; (5) there was no evidentiary basis for giving CALCRIM No. 361 to inform the jury about the permissible inferences that could be drawn from her failure to explain or deny incriminating evidence; and (6) the cumulative effect of the instructional errors compels reversal. Court reject defendants contentions of prejudicial error. Court shall therefore affirm the judgment.

A jury found that defendant Malcolm Hawkins was guilty of attempted robbery and that he personally used a firearm in committing the offense. The trial court sentenced him to prison for an aggregate term of 12 years and imposed various fines and fees. On appeal, defendant argues that because the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence that the firearm was real, not a replica, the court erred in failing to instruct sua sponte that the jury must resolve in defendants favor conflicting inferences from circumstantial evidence. Court shall affirm the judgment.

Following a contested jurisdictional hearing in Contra Costa Superior Court case number J08-01823, the Contra Costa County Juvenile Court found that the minor, R.G., was within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he had committed the crime of possessing marijuana with the intent to sell. (Health & Saf. Code, 11359.) The minor was detained in juvenile hall pending transfer to Shasta County, where he was committed to the Crystal Creek Boys Camp by the Shasta County Juvenile Court. On appeal, the minor contends the juvenile court failed to determine whether he was eligible for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ). Court agree and remand the matter to the juvenile court.

On August 20, 2008, defendant Alvin Leroy Huhn pled no contest to driving under the influence with injury (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (a)). He entered his plea with the understanding that he could receive a sentence of three years in state prison, but that sentencing would be continued for six months, during which he could enter a Salvation Army residential rehabilitation program, and if he completed the program, he could argue that his participation constituted unusual circumstances justifying probation. On January 28, 2009, defendant appeared in court with counsel who advised the trial court that defendant was not in good standing with the rehabilitation program, and that if the court did not intend to sentence defendant to a maximum of 16 months he wished to withdraw his plea and to exercise his rights under Marsden [People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118].

On two separate occasions, defendant Michael Bryant vandalized the car of his ex-girlfriend (the victim). After the first vandalism incident, the victim obtained a restraining order against defendant, which he violated when he vandalized the victims car for a second time. As a result, defendant was charged with two counts of felony vandalism and misdemeanor disobeying a court order. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial and agreed to a bench trial. At trial, both the victim and another ex-girlfriend, S. F., testified about defendants uncharged misconduct. The court found defendant guilty of all charges and sentenced him to three years in prison. On appeal, defendant claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the victims and S. F.s testimony and information in the probation report regarding uncharged misconduct. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.

Dunnia Ruth Vernon appeals an order denying her motion for relief from default based on her attorneys failure to file suit in a timely manner after the executor of the estate of her late former husband rejected her creditors claim for unpaid spousal and child support and for unpaid promissory notes. Court affirm the judgment.

An investor who acquired rights as an assignee under a gold delivery agreement sued the assignor, claiming the assignor breached its obligations under both the gold delivery agreement and the assignment documents.

Court conclude (1) the assignor did not breach any obligation owed the investor-assignee under the gold delivery agreement; (2) the obligations under the assignment documents were not enforceable because the assignor received no consideration and, alternatively, the obligations were extinguished by a subsequent amendment that provided the investor-assignee with a different guarantor; and (3) the trial courts findings that the assignor did not commit fraud are supported by sufficient evidence and by the proper interpretation of the underlying documents.

Kern County homebuyers appeal from judgments of dismissal in favor of their seller/builder and real estate representatives after the superior court sustained demurrers without leave to amend a fourth amended complaint alleging, among other things, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, and negligence arising from the construction of their home in Pine Mountain Club. Court affirm.